重新思索人道干預在國際法上的定位

Rethinking the Positioning of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law

人道干預（humanitarian intervention）最早從哲學與神學對於「義戰」（just war）的討論中衍生而來。這種觀念認為，在一定條件下，為防止一國暴虐、不正當的統治，其他國家應有道德上的正當性，對之發動戰爭以終止不義的狀態。
本文藉由文獻的分析，勾勒、拼湊出人道干預概念在當代學說上的定義輪廓。大致而言，本文主張當代的人道干預概念，可被定義為；為阻止特定國家或組織進行重大、系統性之人權侵害，而進行的武力使用。這種武力使用，除了須有防止大規模人權侵害的動機之外，發動干預之一方亦必須有合理理由相信，其他和平的方式均已無從達成上開目的，始可為之。
此外，本文主張：《聯合國憲章》第2 條第4 項與第7 項的規定，並不必然使人道干預從此成為非法。然而，人道干預是否能直接從《憲章》既有的明文規定，如《憲章》第51 條與第56 條當中找到適當的定位？亦值懷疑。而本文在檢視既有學說中的論辯後，認為目前《憲章》的既有規定，均無法為人道干預提供堅實的法律基礎。
至於人道干預得否成為習慣國際法？學說間也有甚多討論。本文對此議題採取區分的見解，主張在：（1）多國聯合使用武力；（2）在人權侵害「進行中」所發動的、非「先發性」（anticipatory）干預，以及（3）基於防止「滅絕種族、危害人類、種族清洗與戰爭罪」的理由所發動之干預，應已受當今習慣國際法承認。

Humanitarian intervention originated from the philosophical and theological discussion on ‘just war’. According to this view, to prevent abusive and unjust governance of a state, the recourse to force by other states against it is morally permissible.
This thesis attempts to outline the definition of humanitarian intervention by analysing the pertinent academic literature. In brief, this research suggests that the contemporary concept of humanitarian intervention can be defined as the recourse to force to prevent gross and systematic human rights violations. In addition to the motives of suppressing such abuses, military intervention is only permissible when the intervening parties reasonably believe that no other peaceful resort is effective in achieving the goal.
Furthermore, this thesis suggests that article 2(4) and 2(7) of the United Nations Charter do not necessarily illegalise humanitarian intervention. Be that as it may, what remains unclear is whether this concept finds justification according to the express stipulations, such as article 51 and 56 of the Charter. After reviewing the current academic debate, the author contends that none of these articles provides a solid legal basis for such kind of intervention.
There have also been discussions on whether humanitarian intervention has been recognised as part of customary international law. Concerning this issue, this research argues that the answer is in the positive under the conditions where (1) the intervening party comprises multiple states; (2) the intervention aims to halt an ‘ongoing’ human rights violation and is non-anticipatory; and (3) the intervention launched is to prevent ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes’.